Characters as Adaptive and Specific. qIo<^ 



On what then do Mr. Wallace and his followers 

 rejy for their great distinction between specific and 

 all other characters in respect of utility? This is 

 the final and fundamental question which I must 

 leave these naturalists themselves to answer ; for my 

 whole contention is, that it is unanswerable. But 

 although I am satisfied that they have nothing on 

 which to base their generalization, it seems worth 

 while to conclude by showing yet one further point. 

 And this is, that these naturalists themselves, as soon 

 as they quit merely abstract assertions and come to 

 deal with actual facts, contradict their own general- 

 ization. It is worth while to show this by means of 

 a few quotations, that we may perceive how impossible 

 it is for them to sustain their generalization in the 

 domain of fact. 



As it is desirable to be brief, I will confine myself 

 to quoting from Mr. Wallace. 



" Colour may be looked upon as a necessary result of the 

 highly complex chemical constitution of animal tissues and 

 fluids. The blood, the bile, the bones, the fat, and other 

 tissues have characteristic, and often brilliant colours, which 

 we cannot suppose to have been determined for any special 

 purpose as colours, since they are usually concealed. The 

 external organs and integuments, would, by the same general 

 laws, naturally give rise to a greater variety of colour \" 



Surely comment is needless. Have the colour of 

 external organs and integuments nothing to do with 



as we have seen, furnishes so convenient a loop-hole of escape in cases 

 where even the argument from our ignorance of possible utility appears 

 absurd. In his latest work, however, he is much less sweeping in 

 his statements. He limits his doctrine to the case of "specific charac- 

 ters " alone, and even with regard to them makes unlimited drafts upon 

 the principle of correlation. 

 ' Parwinism, p. 297. 



